Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
The doctrine of stare decisis dictates that "absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like
cases ought to be decided alike."1
This Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the May 9, 2012
Decision3 and the September 17, 2012 Resolution4 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA EB
Case No. 716.
Factual Antecedents
On December 14, 2007, respondent St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. (SLIVIC) received from the
Large Taxpayers Service-Documents Processing and Quality Assurance Division of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) Audit Results/Assessment Notice Nos. QA-07-0000965 and
QA-07-000097,6 assessing respondent SLMC deficiency income tax under Section 27(B) 7 of the
1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, for taxable year 2005 in the amount of
P78,617,434.54 and for taxable year 2006 in the amount of P57,119,867.33.
On January 14, 2008, SLMC filed with petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) an
administrative protest8 assailing the assessments. SLMC claimed that as a non-stock, non-profit
charitable and social welfare organization under Section 30(E) and (G)9 of the 1997 NIRC, as
amended, it is exempt from paying income tax.
On April 25, 2008, SLMC received petitioner CIR's Final Decision on the Disputed
Assessment10 dated April 9, 2008 increasing the deficiency income for the taxable year 2005 tax to
P82,419,522.21 and for the taxable year 2006 to P60,259,885.94, computed as follows:
PARTICULARS AMOUNT
Sales/Revenues/Receipts/Fees P3,623,511,616.00
Add: Increments
PARTICULARS [AMOUNT]
Sales/Revenues/Receipts/Fees P3,815,922,240.00
Add: Increments -
Aggrieved, SLMC elevated the matter to the CTA via a Petition for Review,12 docketed as CTA
Case No. 7789.
On August 26, 2010, the CTA Division rendered a Decision 13 finding SLMC not liable for deficiency
income tax under Section 27(B) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, since it is exempt from paying
income tax under Section 30(E) and (G) of the same Code. Thus:
Page 4 of 13
SO ORDERED.14
CIR moved for reconsideration but the CTA Division denied the same in its December 28, 2010
Resolution.15
This prompted CIR to file a Petition for Review16 before the CTA En Banc.
On May 9, 2012, the CTA En Banc affirmed the cancellation and setting aside of the Audit
Results/Assessment Notices issued against SLMC. It sustained the findings of the CTA Division
that SLMC complies with all the requisites under Section 30(E) and (G) of the 1997 NIRC and thus,
entitled to the tax exemption provided therein.17
On September 17, 2012, the CTA En Banc denied CIR's Motion for Reconsideration.
Issue
Hence, CIR filed the instant Petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contending that the CTA
erred in exempting SLMC from the payment of income tax.
Meanwhile, on September 26, 2012, the Court rendered a Decision in G.R. Nos. 195909 and
195960, entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.,18 finding
SLMC not entitled to the tax exemption under Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC of 1997 as it does
not operate exclusively for charitable or social welfare purposes insofar as its revenues from paying
patients are concerned. Thus, the Court disposed of the case in this manner:
The petition of St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. in G.R. No. 195960 is DENIED for
violating Section I, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Page 5 of 13
SO ORDERED.19
Considering the foregoing, SLMC then filed a Manifestation and Motion 20 informing the Court that
on April 30, 2013, it paid the BIR the amount of basic taxes due for taxable years 1998, 2000-2002,
and 2004-2007, as evidenced by the payment confirmation 21 from the BIR, and that it did not pay
any surcharge,
interest, and compromise penalty in accordance with the above-mentioned Decision of the Court. In
view of the payment it made, SLMC moved for the dismissal of the instant case on the ground of
mootness.
CIR opposed the motion claiming that the payment confirmation submitted by SLMC is not a
competent proof of payment as it is a mere photocopy and does not even indicate the quarter/s
and/or year/s said payment covers.22
In reply,23 SLMC submitted a copy of the Certification24 issued by the Large Taxpayers Service of
the BIR dated May 27, 2013, certifying that, "[a]s far as the basic deficiency income tax for taxable
years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 are concerned, this Office considers the cases
closed due to the payment made on April 30, 2013." SLMC likewise submitted a letter 25 from the
BIR dated November 26, 2013 with attached Certification of Payment 26 and application for
abatement,27 which it earlier submitted to the Court in a related case, G.R. No. 200688,
entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.28
CIR's Arguments
CIR argues that under the doctrine of stare decisis SLMC is subject to 10% income tax under
Section 27(B) of the 1997 NIRC.29 It likewise asserts that SLMC is liable to pay compromise
penalty pursuant to Section 248(A)30 of the 1997 NIRC for failing to file its quarterly income tax
returns.31
As to the alleged payment of the basic tax, CIR contends that this does not render the instant case
moot as the payment confirmation submitted by SLMC is not a competent proof of payment of its
tax liabilities.32
SLMC's Arguments
SLMC, on the other hand, begs the indulgence of the Court to revisit its ruling in G.R. Nos. 195909
and 195960 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.)33 positing that
earning a profit by a charitable, benevolent hospital or educational institution does not result in the
withdrawal of its tax exempt privilege.34 SLMC further claims that the income it derives from
operating a hospital is not income from "activities conducted for profit." 35 Also, it maintains that in
accordance with the ruling of the Court in G.R. Nos. 195909 and 195960 (Commissioner of Internal
Page 6 of 13
Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.),36 it is not liable for compromise penalties.37
In any case, SLMC insists that the instant case should be dismissed in view of its payment of the
basic taxes due for taxable years 1998, 2000-2002, and 2004-2007 to the BIR on April 30, 2013.38
Our Ruling
SLMC is liable for income tax under Section 27(B) of the 1997 NIRC insofar as its revenues from
paying patients are concerned.
The issue of whether SLMC is liable for income tax under Section 27(B) of the 1997 NIRC insofar
as its revenues from paying patients are concerned has been settled in G.R. Nos. 195909 and
195960 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.),39 where the Court
ruled that:
xxx We hold that Section 27(B) of the NIRC does not remove the income tax
exemption of proprietary non-profit hospitals under Section 30(E) and (G). Section
27(B) on one hand, and Section 30(E) and (G) on the other hand, can be construed
together without the removal of such tax exemption. The effect of the introduction of
Section 27(B) is to subject the taxable income of two specific institutions, namely,
proprietary non-profit educational institutions and proprietary non-profit hospitals,
among the institutions covered by Section 30, to the 10% preferential rate under
Section 27(B) instead of the ordinary 30% corporate rate under the last paragraph of
Section 30 in relation to Section 27(A)(1).
Section 27(B) of the NIRC imposes a 10% preferential tax rate on the income of (1)
proprietary non-profit educational institutions and (2) proprietary non-profit hospitals.
The only qualifications for hospitals are that they must be proprietary and non-profit.
'Proprietary' means private, following the definition of a 'proprietary educational
institution' as 'any private school maintained and administered by private individuals
or groups' with a government permit. 'Non-profit' means no net income or asset
accrues to or benefits any member or specific person, with all the net income or asset
devoted to the institution's purposes and all its activities conducted not for profit.
The sports club in Club Filipino, Inc. de Cebu may be non-profit, but it was not
charitable. The Court defined 'charity' in Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon
City as 'a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an
Page 7 of 13
indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts under the
influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or
[by] otherwise lessening the burden of government.' A non-profit club for the benefit of
its members fails this test. An organization may be considered as non-profit if it does
not distribute any part of its income to stockholders or members. However, despite its
being a tax exempt institution, any income such institution earns from activities
conducted for profit is taxable, ad expressly provided in the last paragraph of Section
30.
Charitable institutions, however, are not ipso facto entitled to a tax exemption. The
requirements for a tax exemption are specified by the law granting it. The power of
Congress to tax implies the power to exempt from tax. Congress can create tax
exemptions, subject to the constitutional provision that '[n]o law granting any tax
exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members
of Congress.' The requirements for a tax exemption are strictly construed against tl1e
taxpayer because an exemption restricts the collection of taxes necessary for the
existence of the government.
The Court in Lung Center declared that the Lung Center of the Philippines is a
charitable institution for the purpose of exemption from real property taxes. This ruling
uses the same premise as Hospital de San Juan and Jesus Sacred Heart
College which says that receiving income from paying patients does not destroy the
charitable nature of a hospital.
For real property taxes, the incidental generation of income is permissible because
the test of exemption is the use of the property. The Constitution provides that
Page 8 of 13
The Constitution exempts charitable institutions only from real property taxes. In the
NIRC, Congress decided to extend the exemption to income taxes. However, the way
Congress crafted Section 30(E) of the NIRC is materially different from Section 28(3),
Article VI of the Constitution. Section 30(E) of the NIRC defines the corporation or
association that is exempt from income tax. On the other hand, Section 28(3), Article
VI of the Constitution does not define a charitable institution, but requires that the
institution 'actually, directly and exclusively' use the property for a charitable purpose.
Section 30(E) of the NIRC provides that a charitable institution must be:
(4) No part of its net income or asset shall belong to or inure to the benefit of any
member, organizer, officer or any specific person.
Thus, both the organization and operations of the charitable institution must be
devoted 'exclusively' for charitable purposes. The organization of the institution refers
to its corporate form, as shown by its articles of incorporation, by-laws and other
constitutive documents. Section 30(E) of the NIRC specifically requires that the
corporation or association be non-stock, which is defined by the Corporation Code as
'one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees,
or officers' and that any profit 'obtain[ed] as an incident to its operations shall,
whenever necessary or proper, be used tor the furtherance of the purpose or
purposes for which the corporation was organized.' However, under Lung Center, any
profit by a charitable institution must not only be plowed back 'whenever necessary or
proper,' but must be 'devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is
intended to achieve.'
The operations of the charitable institution generally refer to its regular activities.
Section 30(E) of the NIRC requires that these operations be exclusive to charity.
There is also a specific requirement that 'no part of [the] net income or asset shall
belong to or inure to the benefit of any member, organizer, officer or any specific
Page 9 of 13
person.' The use of lands, buildings and improvements of the institution is but a part
of its operations.
There is no dispute that St. Luke's is organized as a non-stock and non profit
charitable institution. However, this does not automatically exempt St Luke's from
paying taxes. This only refers to the organization of St. Luke's. Even if St. Luke's
meets the test of charity, a charitable institution is not ipso facto tax exempt To be
exempt from real property taxes, Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution requires
that a charitable institution use the property 'actually, directly and exclusively' for
charitable purposes. To be exempt from income taxes, Section 30(E) of the NIRC
requires that a charitable institution must be 'organized and operated exclusively' for
charitable purposes. Likewise, to be exempt from income taxes, Section 30(G) of the
NIRC requires that the institution be 'operated exclusively' for social welfare.
However, the last paragraph of Section 30 of the NIRC qualifies the words 'organized
and operated exclusively' by providing that:
In short, the last paragraph of Section 30 provides that if a tax exempt charitable
institution conducts 'any' activity for profit, such activity is not tax exempt even as its
not-for-profit activities remain tax exempt. This paragraph qualifies the requirements
in Section 30(E) that the [n]on-stock corporation or association [must be] organized
and operated exclusively for . . . charitable . . . purposes . . . It likewise qualifies the
requirement in Section 30(G) that the civic organization must be 'operated
exclusively' for the promotion of social welfare.
Thus, even if the charitable institution must be 'organized and operated exclusively'
for charitable purposes, it is nevertheless allowed to engage in 'activities conducted
for profit' without losing its tax exempt status for its not for profit activities. The only
consequence is that the 'income of whatever kind and character' of a charitable
institution 'from any of its activities conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition
made of such income, shall be subject to tax.' Prior to the introduction of Section
27(B), the tax rate on such income from for profit activities was the ordinary corporate
rate under Section 27(A). With the introduction of Section 27(B), the tax rate is now
10%.
In 1998, St. Luke's had total revenues of P1,730,367,965 from services to paying
patients. It cannot be disputed that a hospital which receives approximately P1.73
billion from paying patients is not an institution 'operated exclusively' for charitable
Page 10 of 13
purposes. Clearly, revenues from paying patients are income received from 'activities
conducted for profit.' Indeed, St. Luke's admits that it derived profits from its paying
patients. St. Luke's declared P1,730,367,965 as 'Revenues from Services to Patients'
in contrast to its 'Free Services' expenditure of P218,187,498. In its Comment in G.R.
No. 195909, St. Luke's showed the following 'calculation' to support its claim that
65.20% of its 'income after expenses was allocated to free or charitable services' in
1998.
xxxx
The Court cannot expand the meaning of the words 'operated exclusively' without
violating the NIRC. Services to paying patients are activities conducted for profit.
They cannot be considered any other way. There is a 'purpose to make profit over
and above the cost' of services. The P1.73 billion total revenues :from paying patients
is not even incidental to St. Luke's charity expenditure of P218,187,498 for
non-paying patients.
Jesus Sacred Heart College declared that there is no official legislative record
explaining the phrase 'any activity conducted for profit.' However, it quoted a
deposition of Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco, who was a member of the Committee
of Conference for the Senate, which introduced the phrase 'or from any activity
conducted for profit.'
The Court finds that St. Luke's is a corporation that is not 'operated exclusively' for
charitable or social welfare purposes insofar as its revenues from paying patients are
C.Qncemed. This ruling is bacred not only on a strict interpretation of a provision
granting tax exemption, but also on the clear and plain text of Section 30(E) and (G).
Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC requires that an institution be 'operated
exclusively' for charitable or social welfare purposes to be completely exempt from
income tax. An institution tmder Section 30(E) or (G) does not lose its tax exemption if
it earns income from its for-profit activities. Such income from for-profit activities,
tmder the last paragraph of Section 30, is merely subject to income tax, previously at
the ordinary corporate rate but now at the preferential tO% rate pursuant to Section
27(B).
St. Luke's fails to meet the requirements tmder Section 30(E) and (G) of the NlRC to
be completely tax exempt from all its income. However, it remains a proprietary
non-profit hospital tmder Section 27(B) of the NIRC as long as it does not distribute
any of its profits to its members and such profits are reinvested pursuant to its
Page 12 of 13
St. Luke's is therefore liable for deficiency income tax in 1998 tmder Section 27(B) of
the NIRC. However, St. Luke's has good reasons to rely on the letter dated 6 June
1990 by the BIR, which opined that St. Luke's is 'a corporation for purely charitable
and social welfare purposes' and thus exempt from income tax. In Michael J. Lhuillier,
Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court said that 'good faith and honest
belief that one is not subject to tax on the basis of previous interpretation of
government agencies tasked to implement the tax law, are sufficient justification to
delete the imposition of surcharges and interest.'40
A careful review of the pleadings reveals that there is no countervailing consideration for the Court
to revisit its aforequoted ruling in G.R. Nos. 195909 and 195960 (Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.). Thus, under the doctrine of stare decisis, which states
that "[o]nce a case has been decided in one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at
issue xxx should be decided in the same manner," 41 the Court finds that SLMC is subject to 10%
income tax insofar as its revenues from paying patients are concerned.
To be clear, for an institution to be completely exempt from income tax, Section 30(E) and (G) of
the 1997 NIRC requires said institution to operate exclusively for charitable or social welfare
purpose. But in case an exempt institution under Section 30(E) or (G) of the said Code earns
income from its for-profit activities, it will not lose its tax exemption. However, its income from for
profit activities will be subject to income tax at the preferential 10% rate pursuant to Section 27(B)
thereof.
As to whether SLMC is liable for compromise penalty under Section 248(A) of the 1997 NIRC for its
alleged failure to file its quarterly income tax returns, this has also been resolved in G.R. Nos.
195909 and 195960 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc.),42 where the imposition of surcharges and interest under Sections 248 43 and 24944 of the 1997
NIRC were deleted on the basis of good faith and honest belief on the part SLMC that it is not
subject to tax. Thus, following the ruling of the Court in the said case, SLMC is not liable to pay
compromise penalty under Section 248(A) of the 1997 NIRC.
The Petition is rendered moot by the payment made by SLMC on April 30, 2013.
However, in view of the payment of the basic taxes made by SLMC on April 30, 2013, the instant
Petition has become moot.
While the Court agrees with the CIR that the payment confirmation from the BIR presented by
SLMC is not a competent proof of payment as it does not indicate the specific taxable period the
said payment covers, the Court fmds that the Certification issued by the Large Taxpayers Service
of the BIR dated May 27, 2013, and the letter from the BIR dated November 26, 2013 with attached
Page 13 of 13
Certification of Payment and application for abatement are sufficient to prove payment especially
since CIR never questioned the authenticity of these documents. In fact, in a related case, G.R. No.
200688, entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.,45 the Court
dismissed the petition based on a letter issued by CIR confirming SLMC's payment of taxes, which
is the same letter submitted by SLMC in the instant case.
In fine, the Court resolves to dismiss the instant Petition as the same has been rendered moot by
the payment made by SLMC of the basic taxes for the taxable years 2005 and 2006, in the
amounts of P49,919,496.40 and P41,525,608.40, respectively. 46
SO ORDERED.